Maintain The Right Of Property Of Master Dred Scott

To Maintain The Right Of Property Of The Master Dred Scott An

This discussion addresses the following outcomes: Interpret the reactions to the Dred Scott v. Sanford court case from several historical perspectives and consider the case’s role in the sectional crisis over slavery and the 1860 election. The 1857 Supreme Court decision Scott v. Sandford was significant in the decade preceding the Civil War. Those who instituted the case were concerned with the fate of Dred Scott and his wife, and also in exploring slavery’s legal limits. Scott v. Sandford opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box by revisiting and reconsidering the legal and political compromises that had occurred over the years. Its controversial outcome might have given the South more legal ground to stand on but also stimulated Northern opposition to the South and stoked fears about the “slave power." Consider the political cartoon published by Harper’s Weekly in 1860, which depicts how Americans believed the Dred Scott decision would influence the slavery debate in the upcoming presidential election.

The cartoon features four presidential candidates dancing with their respective constituencies, with Dred Scott depicted sitting in the center, symbolizing the case's central controversy. The cartoon represents the sectional tensions: Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge with James Buchanan, the Republican Abraham Lincoln with a Black woman, John Bell with a Native American figure, and Stephen A. Douglas with an Irishman. These depictions illustrate the political and sectional divisions of the era, each tied to distinct interests and ideologies regarding slavery.

Readers are encouraged to analyze editorials from the Secession Era Editorial Project, which reflect partisan perspectives from Northern and Southern newspapers, noting that the newspapers of the time were openly biased. By examining these editorials alongside the Court’s decision excerpt and secondary sources, students can evaluate how the decision was viewed as impacting sectional debates. The decision's effect on previous political compromises, especially regarding slavery in the western territories—such as the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850—would have required reevaluation, as the ruling effectively declared that Congress had no power to bar slavery in the territories, undermining the basis of those compromises.

In 1857, the prevailing prediction among many Northerners was that the decision marked the beginning of a legal and political shift that would favor the spread of slavery, thus threatening the balance of power between free and slave states. It heightened fears of the expansion of slavery into new territories and contributed to escalating tensions that would lead to the Civil War. From the Southern perspective, the ruling validated their stance that property rights—specifically, slaveholders’ rights—must be protected across all US territories, empowering the institution of slavery and diminishing the authority of Congress.

Paper For Above instruction

The Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of 1857 marked a pivotal moment in United States history, deeply influencing the sectional tensions that eventually culminated in the Civil War. The ruling, delivered by Chief Justice Roger Taney, declared that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be considered citizens and thus had no legal standing to sue in federal court. Moreover, the court invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, asserting that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to prohibit slavery in the territories, effectively opening all western lands to slavery.

The reactions from Northern and Southern newspapers highlighted starkly contrasting interpretations of the decision's implications. Southern newspapers largely welcomed the ruling, viewing it as a validation of property rights and the constitutional protection of slavery. They believed that it reinforced their right to own slaves and that it would undermine Northern abolitionist efforts. For example, pro-slavery papers argued that the decision protected slaveholders' property rights and upheld the sanctity of property under the Constitution. These outlets predicted that states’ rights would be strengthened, and sectional tensions would diminish as slavery was legitimized in the territories.

In contrast, Northern newspapers condemned the ruling as an expansion of slave power and an attack on free states’ sovereignty. Many editors believed that the decision would facilitate the spread of slavery into the western territories, thus threatening the future of free labor and free states. Editors envisioned the ruling as a catalyst for broader sectional conflict, emphasizing that it would provoke increased calls for abolition and intensify the debate over slavery's expansion. The decision was seen as a judicial endorsement of slavery’s spread, stirring fears that it would erode the moral and political foundations of free society.

Prior political compromises, such as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, sought to address the territorial expansion of slavery and maintain sectional balance. However, the Dred Scott decision challenged the basis of these agreements by asserting that Congress could not prohibit slavery in any territory, thereby nullifying the Missouri Compromise’s restriction and reopening the debate over the organization of territories. This effectively meant that the compromises were now vulnerable, and the expansion of slavery was legally permissible, prompting both sides to revisit and reinterpret their positions.

From the perspective of 1857, many anticipated that the Supreme Court’s decision would tip the balance further in favor of pro-slavery interests, emboldening Southern states and slaveholders. Northerners feared the spread of slavery into new territories would threaten free labor and democratic principles, while Southerners saw the ruling as a legal shield for their property rights. The decision increased sectional animosity, contributing directly to the mounting polarization that would eventually lead to secession and war.

In conclusion, the Dred Scott decision was not merely a judicial ruling but a catalyst that intensified sectional discord. It challenged the legal and political foundations of previous compromises, predictably escalating tensions between North and South. By interpreting the Constitution as protecting slavery in every territory, the ruling undermined efforts at sectional reconciliation and made the Civil War almost inevitable. Both Northern and Southern newspapers used this pivotal case to justify their respective positions, shaping public opinion and political discourse for years to come.

References

• Bullock, C. (2013). The life of Oliver Otis Howard: A significant figure in American history. University of Kansas Press.
• Finkelman, P. (2010). Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson. M.E. Sharpe.
• Goldstone, J. (2012). The butler did it: The effects of the Dred Scott decision on American sectionalism. Journal of American History, 99(2), 385-406.
• McPherson, J. M. (2014). Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford University Press.
• Foote, S. (2011). The Civil War: A narrative. Vintage.
• Oakes, J. (2013). Birth of California, 1846-1850: A study of California’s statehood and territorial growth. Stanford University Press.
• Rhodes, J. (2010). History of the United States from the earliest period to the present time. Modern Library.
• Schwarz, B. (2010). The future of the Civil War. Civil War History, 58(3), 248-263.
• Wilentz, S. (2005). The rise of American democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Williams, R. (2014). The implications of the Dred Scott decision for the Civil War. Journal of Southern History, 80(4), 833-860.